The court granted creditor’s motion to dismiss; the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction for the enforcement of a post-confirmation employment agreement between two non-debtors that would have no effect on the bankruptcy estate.
You are here
Opinions
Notice: Not all of the Judges Opinions will be made available on this site. Individual Judges have the option of specifying that all, some or none of their opinions be posted.
Judge Ben T. Barry
In this chapter 13 case, the court applied the same factors previously recognized by the Eighth Circuit for determining good faith under § 1307(c) and § 1325(a)(3) to § 1325(a)(7). Because the objecting creditor failed to produce sufficient evidence to support her motion to reconvert and many of her substantive objections, the court denied her motion and overruled all but two of her objections to confirmation, which related to a domestic support claim and the debtor’s applicable commitment period.
The court found that provisions of an LLC operating agreement and Arkansas statute that make the filing of a bankruptcy petition an event of disassociation are invalid and not enforceable.
The Court denied a creditor's complaint to determine the dischargeability of debt under section 523(a)(2)(B) because the creditor did not prove that the debtor possessed the requisite intent to deceive or that the creditor reasonably relied on the debtor's financial statement in extending credit.
The debtor’s former employer requested a determination of dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(6) for damages arising from an alleged breach of a non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreement signed by the debtor during employment. The Court found that the non-competition provision of the agreement was not valid, and that the employer did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the debtor violated the remaining provisions of the agreement. Because this resulted in a finding that there was no underlying debt, the Court denied the employer’s causes of action under § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(6).
Judge Richard D. Taylor
Court adopts Sanderfoot precedent with regard to lien avoidance under § 522(f)(1)(A).
James G. Mixon
The creditor's claim was disallowed. Neither of the writings were enforceable contracts. The only enforceable agreement, the oral agreement for $250,000.00, had been paid in full. The creditor failed to meet his burden of proof that the initial agreement was for anything more than $250,000.00. Attorneys' fees were not appropriate as both parties were responsible for the writings that led to the litigation.
Audrey R. Evans
Court held that the compensation paid to attorney was unreasonable and excessive in light of the services provided, and ordered attorney to disgorge the entire amount of attorney fees paid to him for that representation. Court also found that attorney's inadequate representation and efforts to conceal those inadequacies warranted an entry of sanctions against him. Court sanctioned attorney by suspending him from practicing before the Arkansas Bankruptcy Courts pending a review and determination of the matter by the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct. In re Burnett, 450 B.R. 116 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2011).